YVR Airport & Sea Island Developments Discussion

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by casper

I thought Transat was adding a domestic flight to feed flights out of Toronto and Montreal. If that is the case it may be more a strategy to use the 737 domestically and operate a hub operation. Until now Transat has mostly been a point to point airline.

Hmm, seems like a bit of an opening to Rouge then. I doubt anyone in Vancouver is very loyal to Transat, so adding an additional connection through YUL or YYZ would turn a lot off if they are able to get a cheap alternative on rouge... and get those sweet aeroplan points too!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There's been a bit of chatter on this over at A.net

I noted this a while back that with the Persian diaspora in Vancouver quite large this seemed like a strong possible flight. It certainly helps that the diaspora here is predominantly quite wealthy and educated. Seems logical to start with YYZ then move pretty quickly to YVR.

LAX could support its own multiple daily flights I'm sure, but if Canada can beat the US to opening bilateral restrictions we may be able to snag some early traffic from LA to help start the route.

If Iran Air does come to Canada, I guess it's natural that YYZ be first. But with that part of the world descending into instability - now Iran, recently Turkey, is it really feasible?
I think it makes a lot of sense, too, but maybe getting Qatar Airlines or such may be a more real option. Again, this is based on the bad political news from that region.

[MalcolmTucker]

Iran like Turkey wants to displace the Mid-East 3, which is much easier when you have domestic O&D to anchor the strategy.

A daily turn at an airport of their choice can't hurt.

[Gordon]

Does anyone know if thereis any West jet encore expansion planned?

[mezzanine]

YVR-WAW? Picked up on talk on the YEG thread and found this:

LOT Polish Airlines is in expansion mode and Canada is in line for more service.
On his first visit to this country since taking office in January, new LOT CEO Rafal Milczarski told PressToday that Canada is a special market for the airline due both to the strong Polish community here and the fact the airline’s first transatlantic flight landed in Toronto (in 1972), even before the US.

......

Toronto is one of three North American gateways for LOT in North America, including New York-JFK and Chicago. Plans have already been announced for the airline to return to Newark on April 28, 2017, and today, the airline said it will also commence four-times weekly service to Los Angeles starting in April, 2017. LOT’s strategic plan includes doubling capacity by 2020, by which time Milczarski speculated that Western Canada (believed to be Vancouver) is “likely” to have a LOT flight.

http://www.travelpress.com/lot-boost-toronto-service/#.V_Xmj_ArKUk

Scuttlebutt on the report's part IMO, but LOT/WAW has popped onto the radar for YVR.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Yup... CDG down to one weekly but AMS still at three weekly? 2 nonstop and 1 one stop via YYC.

YYC-CDG appears to be gone altogether - it was only once weekly anyway

So YVR looks like they are losing 2 weekly direct Europe flights (2 to CDG and 1 to FCO but gaining +1 to MAN)... Makes you wonder if they know something!

Now YVR-MAN is also down to only 1 weekly; YYC-MAN is gone altogether.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by nname

Now YVR-MAN is also down to only 1 weekly; YYC-MAN is gone altogether.

Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!

On Rouge, no doubt. Summer only. >>> Another question please: if LOT Polish Airlines is considering Vancouver, wouldn't it be logical that another airline also might be?
There are a lot of Italians in Vancouver. But I don't imagine we could ever dreamof ALITALIA to FCO. "You have to go through Toronto, nya nya nya!"

[SpongeG]

I like the big vifeo screens they have added ro the terminal, I have seen the one in the domestic post security and domestic check in areas, they add a lot of movement and action to otherwise previously dead walls

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

On Rouge, no doubt. Summer only. >>> Another question please: if LOT Polish Airlines is considering Vancouver, wouldn't it be logical that another airline also might be?
There are a lot of Italians in Vancouver. But I don't imagine we could ever dreamof ALITALIA to FCO. "You have to go through Toronto, nya nya nya!"

There's an Italian population in Vancouver, but it's old. Many of them brought their whole family over already and have little reason to go back for visits.

Toronto, I believe, has a more "Italian" feeling to its Italian community.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

There's an Italian population in Vancouver, but it's old. Many of them brought their whole family over already and have little reason to go back for visits.

Toronto, I believe, has a more "Italian" feeling to its Italian community.

The toronto Italian community is bigger, for sure. And yes, their pasta is fresher.

[ACT7]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There's been a bit of chatter on this over at A.net

I noted this a while back that with the Persian diaspora in Vancouver quite large this seemed like a strong possible flight. It certainly helps that the diaspora here is predominantly quite wealthy and educated. Seems logical to start with YYZ then move pretty quickly to YVR.

LAX could support its own multiple daily flights I'm sure, but if Canada can beat the US to opening bilateral restrictions we may be able to snag some early traffic from LA to help start the route.

A little info about the Persian diaspora in Canada, the community is nearly as large in Vancouver as it is in Toronto, despite the GTA being over twice the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Canadians

The Iranian population in the GTA is closer to 80K based on the 2011 census - which probably puts it at closer to 90K now.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...1=Ethnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

Vancouver's is closer to 40K in 2011, which probably puts is closer to 50K today.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/...hnic%20origin&B1=All&Custom=&TABID=1

So, YYZ is probably the most likely first choice as you mentioned, but a second destination is a very unlikely scenario. Interestingly, Air Canada is also seeking flights to IKA so it remains to be seen if AC and Iran Air form a JV with one code-sharing. It seems unlikely that both airlines would be using their own metal between Canada and Iran.

Just my two cents...

[trofirhen]

I still think Turkish to Istanbul would have been YVR's best bet for an Eastern European destination, but this is pretty much ruled out now due to Turkish cutbacks due to regional instability.
Too damn bad. I guess we'll have to do all our Eastern Europe / Middle East transferring at the the European Big 4 (LHR, CDG, AMS, and FRA > and we're lucky to have those).

[LeftCoaster]

According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.

Thank you, yes. It's post # 13. He says "I wonder how Ottawa will react this time?" People will accuse me of paranoia, but I'll bet Ottawa will say no to IST-YVR.
They want to route most things through YYZ, and to a lesser extent YUL.
This will be rather an "acid test" of The Ministry of Transport's willingness to open up YVR more.

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

According to some schmo on A.net the Turkish foreign minister gave a talk in Montreal a couple days ago indicating they are still interested in YVR.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1344157

I believe the minister would have been there for the aviation climate change agreement just signed.

The Turkish issue is a bit of a double edged sword. On one had traffic into IST and Turkey has fallen off a cliff. On the other hand Turkish has an obscene oversupply of planes now so if there is a route that has any traffic on it that was unserved (YVR) it may be worth launching to keep the planes from turning to rust.

Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.

[zahav]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Transat slashes and burns its Western Canada ops!

CDG and MAN ripe for the pickings!

I just checked and YVR-MAN is 3 weekly now. I think Air Transat is just loading flights still so can't jump the 🞵🞵🞵 on routes just yet I guess,

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.

And of course due to population density in the eastern US, there are probably way more opportunities for AC to collect transfer passengers through YYZ than YVR who want to fly east.

I heard a rumor that AC was considering launching flights to FRA on their own metal. If that's true, I could definitely see them opposing YVR-IST given Frankfurt's current role as a connecting hub.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Johnny Aussie

Yes, I saw that comment.

People forget, and yes we have brought this up many times before.

Transport Canada (Government of Canada) tends to grant access based on O&D and not based on transfer traffic to a particular country.

If you all recall, and I'm too lazy to dig it up again, somebody posted the market size of YVR-IST in comparison to other North American markets. The local O&D was tiny. However, the potential for transit passengers was much larger of course. Same argument against EK and EY. The local market from YVR-DXB or YVR-AUH is minute. But, like IST, the amount of potential transit traffic is so much larger. That's the crux of the Government's approach. Like it or lump it... that's their model.

So to summarise, Transport Canada would be unlikely to grant further access to Turkish despite the lobbying of various groups (eg Turkish Airlines and local Turkish community groups). Unless someone can prove the YVR-IST market is large enough to support a direct service based on the local market only..... Even though they are a Star Alliance member, Air Canada may also lobby against further access as it may (will) hurt their business model. It has nothing to do with favouring YYZ or YUL, this has more to do with Air Canada... their global hub just happens to be at YYZ.

Thanks, Johnny. But an example I donot quite understand, in keeping with what you said about O/D being tiny:
at Seattle, EK flies to DBX TWICE A DAY. Surely that is mostly connecting traffic. So how come Seattle (a bit bigger, a bit $$$$er than Vancouver I admit)
can support 2 flights per day to the Middle East?
And Vancouver, not at all?
There is a huge contrast and discrepency somewhere. Could you venture an explanation? EK flies to other US cities, too, and Seattle doesn't have to change at JFK or ORD.
Mathematically, what is happening? / Thanks again

[Johnny Aussie]

Originally Posted by zahav

I just checked and YVR-MAN is 3 weekly now. I think Air Transat is just loading flights still so can't jump the 🞵🞵🞵 on routes just yet I guess,

You are right and all nonstop now so that is an increase. The slash and burn not so bad afterall. Will see what happens in the coming weeks.

Originally Posted by Hourglass

And of course due to population density in the eastern US, there are probably way more opportunities for AC to collect transfer passengers through YYZ than YVR who want to fly east.

I heard a rumor that AC was considering launching flights to FRA on their own metal. If that's true, I could definitely see them opposing YVR-IST given Frankfurt's current role as a connecting hub.

Yes, FRA has been on AC's radar for awhile and still on that investor day map!

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Thanks, Johnny. But an example I donot quite understand, in keeping with what you said about O/D being tiny:
at Seattle, EK flies to DBX TWICE A DAY. Surely that is mostly connecting traffic. So how come Seattle (a bit bigger, a bit $$$$er than Vancouver I admit)
can support 2 flights per day to the Middle East?
And Vancouver, not at all?
There is a huge contrast and discrepency somewhere. Could you venture an explanation? EK flies to other US cities, too, and Seattle doesn't have to change at JFK or ORD.
Mathematically, what is happening? / Thanks again

I have explained this numerous times... Here it is again... Transport Canada allocates capacity based on O&D. YVR-IST, YVR-DXB, YVR-AUH have very small O&D. Therefore no flights. It's irrelevant to Transport Canada how many pax would be transiting.
SEA-DXB no restrictions based on O&D, hence flights full of transiting pax.